Appeal No. 2006-0745
Application No. 09/792,758
The examiner essentially finds that Tanikoshi teaches the
invention of independent claims 34 and 35 except for teaching
that control may occur in response to commands received from
either audience members or the presenter. The examiner cites
Treibitz as teaching a presentation that can be controlled by
more than one user. The examiner finds that it would have been
obvious to the artisan to employ Treibitz’ plural control aspects
in the Tanikoshi presentation system. With respect to
independent claim 37, the examiner finds that Tanikoshi teaches
the claimed invention except for allowing one or more audience
members to control the presentation without affecting the
presenter’s display. The examiner finds that this feature is
taught by the additional information in Tanikoshi when employed
in the networked Treibitz multi-site control environment [answer,
pages 3-6].
With respect to claims 34-36, which appellants have argued
as a single group, appellants argue that Treibitz does not teach
the claimed controlling step that is responsive to commands
“received from either audience members or the presenter” [claim
34], or “received from audience members” [claim 35]. Appellants
note that sending messages to the presenter, as taught by
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007